vault backup: 2025-12-17 17:03:56

ambiguity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+id:
+aliases: []
+title: Ambiguity
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - status/incomplete
+  - topic/ambiguity
+  - type/encyclopedia-entry
+---
+# Ambiguity
+
+Not to be confused with [[uncertainty]].
+
+## Common Fallacies
+
+### Reification Fallacy
+
+> [!quote] [Reification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy))
+> **Reification** ... is a fallacy of ambiguity,
+> ...it is the error of treating something that is not concrete...
+> as a concrete thing.
+
+See ["the map is not the territory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation "Map-territory relation").
+
+> [!aside]
+> This one is very common among my peers in estimating.
+> The problem with fallacies, of course,
+> is that you can't simply say "Reification fallacy, booyah".
+> If some one is overgeneralizing,
+> they likely just have a different understanding of the term.
+> Certainty of definition only occurs with some quorum,
+> and I'd argue most of [[construction-estimating|ours]] don't meet it,
+> and that the choice of any term over another ought to be based on utility.
+>
+> > Note also that a term's definition can be certain ~~on some axis~~,
+> > but ambiguous ~~on another~~.
+> > See ["I know it when I see it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it)
+> > which, as far as I'm concerned, is a perfectly legitimate definition.
+
+### Equivocation Fallacy
+
+[Equivocation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation")
+
+The misleading use of a word with more than one meaning
+
+### Composition Fallacy
+
+[Composition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition "Fallacy of composition")
+
+Assuming a whole has a property because its parts have that property
+
+### Division Fallacy
+
+[Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division "Fallacy of division")
+
+Assuming parts have a property because the whole has that property
+
+### Category Mistake
+
+> [!quote] [Category mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)
+> An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit,
+> and after being given a demonstration of each player's role,
+> asking which player performs the "team spirit".
+
+#### Overgeneralization via Hyperspecification
+
+Or "inappropriate synecdoche[^1]"
+
+[^1]: **synecdoche:** Using the name of a part to refer to the whole, or vice versa.
+
+Much of my issue with terminology
+can be blamed on **overgeneralization via hyperspecification**,
+
+[Proprietary eponyms](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proprietary_eponym)
+(synonym: [genericized trademark](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genericized_trademark))
+are usually[^2] an example of such,
+and are prominent in electrical construction.[^3]
+
+[^2]: I'm not a complete pedant, Cadweld is a perfectly unambiguous substitution.
+    "Caddy", "Hilti", and "Vitalink" are my real complaints,
+    where the word only gets me marginally closer
+    to creating a concrete image in my head.
+
+    The general acceptance of "band-aid"
+    compared to the rejection of "coke"
+    may be related.
+
+[^3]: See [Database of American Proprietary Eponyms](https://www.searstower.org/rkrause/brands.html)
+    for examples.